Can you prove that every news organization is owned by powerful businessmen that lean right? MSNBC and Fox are not the only ones dishing out biased news. They may not all do it 24 hours a day like MSNBC and, to a certain degree, Fox, but they all do it.

You are aware that pretty much all mainstream media in the United States is owned by about five corporations, yes?

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

They can't really pander to other demographics without angering the bible belt which makes up the bulk of their voterbase since the Reagan days. If the GOP chose to "modernize" they'd have to start from square one, without the highly active support they've so desperately been clinging on to. They probably don't think it's worth it.

As time goes on and angry, white christians find themselves increasingly margnialized in American society they're going to get even louder and more desperate. Possibly even resorting to some ugly, violent stuff. It might take something like that for the GOP to distance themselves. But that's just some grim speculation on my part.

This is why it is important to BOTH sides that Romney LOST: he DID pander to his far right wing base all through the primaries and then suddenly veered to become a moderate after the RNC convention. If he had been rewarded for running one way for 2 years to cement his base and then a totally different way in the last 2 months to get moderate voters, future elections would make this one look like it was between George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington vs "Honest" Abe Lincoln.

What Romney tried to do was ridiculous, and highly cynical even in a political arena built upon cynicism. Unfortunately, this strategy got him close enough to winning that it will likely will get pulled out of someone's...hat...again.

It seems that the republican party has been in denial for a very long time on a number of issues. Denial about education, denial about America no longer being the "greatest country on earth", America being a Christian nation (it isn't), Denial about evolution, Global warming, the age of the planet, and a plethora of other scientific issues.

Watching the GOP play the blame game and scapegoat everything from the hurricaine, to Romney being a weak candidate, to America full of black and latino voters who "want free shit" has made me realize that they are still in denial. Do you guys think the republican party will admit that they lost based on their ideas being out of touch with the country and change their platform to be more inclusive instead of exclusive? Or will they continue business as usual and further alienate women voters by promising laws limiting their control of their bodies, pressing more de-regulation of banks and big business, and further pursuing their losing platform of 2012?

Since the vote was almost split 50/50 they won't...They'll probably think they're "almost there"

Roger Rivard: In response to a rape case where a 14-year-old girl was held down and sexually assaulted in her school band room, Wisconsin State Rep. Roger Rivard told a newspaper that his father once gave him some great advice: "some girls rape easy."

Allen West: West has been a vocal supporter of such measures as the now-infamous Let Women Die Bill, which would have allowed hospitals to refuse emergency abortion care to women on religious grounds.

Michele Bachmann: She believes in Personhood, but has made a point of saying that a personhood amendment to the constitution should contain an exception for women undergoing In Vitro Fertilization. But not rape victims.

Paul Ryan: Referred to rape as a "method of conception."

Linda McMahon: McMahon said that she believed that hospitals should be required to provide emergency contraception to victims of "emergency rape" only. Whatever that means.

Richard Mourdock: Said during a debate that he believes that rape pregnancies are a gift from God.

Tom Smith: Explained how getting raped and becoming pregnant is sort of exactly like being the father of a daughter who has a baby out of wedlock.

Steve King: Told reporters earlier this year that he's never heard of a woman becoming pregnant as a result of rape or incest, and so rape and incest exceptions to abortion law are silly.

Joe Walsh: "Outside of the very rare circumstances such as ectopic pregnancies, and other rare health issues, the research is pretty clear that with the advances in modern medicine, an invasive and traumatic procedure like an abortion is not necessary to save the life of a mother."

Rick Santorum: Supports forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapists' babies. Like Richard Mourdock, has said that rape pregnancies are a gift from God.

... and these are just some of the anti-scientific, hateful and downright appalling attacks on women from the right. I haven't even come close to starting on the anti gay / minority / elderly / sick / poor agendas the GOP themselves are constantly pushing.

I don't see any democrats bringing this kind of nonsense up. I also don't see democrats attempting to legislate their religious beliefs onto other people.

First, almost every single one of these is an actual twist of what they actually said or believe. However, you are making my point for me. You know about these things and have twisted them in this manner because of the media. Let's take Mourdock as an example. He wasn't out campaigning to have rape pregnancies known as gifts from God, he was asked at a debate about his position on abortion in the case of rape. His actual response was ""I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." This is typical. The candidate may not even be out campaigning to make abortion illegal, but it will get brought up if the they are personally opposed to abortion. However, this doesn't happen the other way. If someone thinks that abortion should be legal, they don't get asked if they support women using abortion as birth control. It is the Democrats and media who want to focus on the personal beliefs of Republicans, but keep that light off of them. You don't see Democrats trying to legislate their religious beliefs? Well you aren't paying attention. Look how often they tried to use that as their reason for redistributing wealth. Also, what about trying to legislate their anti-religious beliefs. It happens all of the time.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 04:36 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Didactic

You are aware that pretty much all mainstream media in the United States is owned by about five corporations, yes?

Good lord, anyone else having flashbacks to 2000? Seriously, I'm hearing the same crap from the republicans, today, that I was hearing from the democrats in 2000. Of course that election was actually "close." Not the beating Obama handed out to Romney a few days ago. Still, its pretty funny to see the "shoe on the other foot," so to speak.

Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

Originally Posted by Jero

If someone thinks that abortion should be legal, they don't get asked if they support women using abortion as birth control.

And the fact that you think this is acceptable says all I need to know about you. If you really believe that there are women who are comfortable enough with getting an abortion that they would use it as a primary contraceptive, you have some serious, serious issues. Like, you should turn off the computer and go seek help immediately.

It would be one thing if conservitards like you believed these things, but they are also trying to push through legislation based solely on unscientific, irrational nonsense. The democrats don't do that, no matter how you try to spin it.

Remind me again who attempted to disenfranchise millions of registered voters in a last-minute desperate bid to swing a few areas their way? Anything to win so that they can push their backwards religious agenda on everyone.

I don't really know what you care about or what you believe but obviously if you are still gleefully pushing the outdated GOP agendas you're going to start really having fun the next few years

Might want to check into Canada or Australia or wherever your kind was threatening to go if Romney lost his "sure thing."

denial about what, did you not look at the numbers, there are just as many republicans as democrats, and their opinions are just as valid as yours.

/thread

yes, and Republicans will continue to get 48% of the vote and lose by 100 points in the electoral college.

The problem with the Republicans is they have gotten away from fiscal conservativism and small gov´t.. and instead are being defined by their stupid immigration, evolution, abortion and women´s rights issues. The problem for the Republicans is the primary process forces this upon the candidates. Romney is the perfect example.. good opinions on the economy, small gov´t.. etc. but he was completely defined in the primaries because he had to adopt the stupid social issue stances of voters in Iowa and SC.

On a national level, we can say that the next Republican candidate must be more pro-immigration and pro-women´s rights.. but the fact is that if a candidate does do that.. they will never make it past the first 4 or 5 primaries.

You want a Republican to win again? Move Ohio, Virginia, Colorado up on the primary schedule and push all the bible-belt countries back. Or at least have 10 states have primaries on the same day. The Reps are going to keep getting killed if their candidates have a microphone in front of them for 2 months while they pander to Iowa voters.

I take it you're not familiar with antibiotic resistant bacteria? Dogs? Livestock?

Let's be very clear - you don't know what "law" and "theory" mean. There's no possible way for their to be a "law of evolution". It'll always be a theory, and quite a strong one. Likewise, all the mechanisms for gravitation that have been proposed are actually theories of gravitation, not laws. The law simply describes something we observe, the theory describes the underlying mechanism (in this case).

Creationists taking shots at evolution are like people standing on the ground throwing rocks at a 747 in flight thousands of feet above them. They won't ever come close to even reaching it, let alone putting a dent on it. The danger is that the rocks fall down and hit everyone around them. People like this hold our entire species back.

And the fact that you think this is acceptable says all I need to know about you. It would be one thing if they just believed these things, but they are also trying to push through legislation based solely on unscientific, irrational nonsense. The democrats don't do that, no matter how you try to spin it.

Remind me again who attempted to disenfranchise millions of registered voters in a last-minute desperate bid to swing a few areas their way? Anything to win so that they can push their backwards religious agenda on everyone.

I don't really know what you care about or what you believe but obviously if you are still gleefully pushing the outdated GOP agendas you're going to start really having fun the next few years

Might want to check into Canada or Australia or wherever your kind was threatening to go if Romney lost his "sure thing."

Listen, I get it. You somehow have the supposed scientific idea that humans can be pregnant with something other than a human. You think it is this clump of cells that can just end up being anything. Therefore, it is not a human does not have the same rights as a human until whatever time you deem fit. However, for those of us that believe that a human pregnancy can only result in the loss of a human or the birth of a human, we see it a little differently. If you want to get religion in the mix, we believe that God knew of this human before it existed. This means that even in the case of rape, ending the pregnancy is loss of a human life caused by the actions of other humans. There are some of us that believe that this should never happen and some who believe that their are exceptions. It is a very complicated moral issue.

Now that this is out there, can you please show me the law that Mourdock was trying to pass that had to do with this?

The Democrats try to force their beliefs on the religious all of the time. You just happen to agree with it so you don't see it.

Who was trying to disenfranchise voters?

This was one election, I am not worried.

Can you show me where anyone was saying they were going to move out of this country if Obama won? I could show you where it happened back in 2004 when Bush won reelection, but what really is the point in that?

You know if you think about it rationally popular vote was 50-48. That isn't a big difference. While we, a mostly socially liberal board, will come up with all kinds of reasons rebulicans are bad it's unlikely the leader ship is going to see a huge issue and try to make sweeping adjustments.

We do not elect our presidents using the popular vote. You can look at it this way.. Obama won 67% of the electoral votes. Or you can define it even worse.. Obama won 9 of the 10 states that mattered. Romney (and all future Republicans) will have to win 52-48 for their to even be a close electoral college race.

We do not elect our presidents using the popular vote. You can look at it this way.. Obama won 67% of the electoral votes. Or you can define it even worse.. Obama won 9 of the 10 states that mattered. Romney (and all future Republicans) will have to win 52-48 for their to even be a close electoral college race.

This is true, but even in those 10 states, the election was really close. We have been swapping elections for decades now. Just back in 2010, people were asking the same questions about whether the Dems were finished. It really could go either way. Now if we start seeing a string of elections going one way, I'd be worried. A two party system is bad enough, a one-party system like we basically have in CA is worse.

You both have got to understand, the Tea Party is a movement about limited government. There are people within it that have all sorts of views, but if they don't have anything to do with limited government, they are not Tea Party views. ... If you are going to accuse me of a lie, you might want to actually prove it.

Why has proposing (and enacting in states) abortion legislation been such a huge part of the 2010 class of GOP lawmakers' agenda then?

YOU have got to understand, that so long as these Tea Party darlings use the positions given to them by their constituents to try o legislate morality, rational people are going to see statements like yours as pure bullshit. If the 2010 Tea Party uprising was really non-partisan outrage at government overstepping their bounds, and losing the moral compass of fiscal responsibility, it would have happened in Bush's first term, instead of as a reaction to a healthcare reform law that didn't even cut out their insurance companies.

Know what was happening in 2003? The people on street corners complaining about the Patriot Act, Iraq "intelligence", and the fiscal stupidity of cutting taxes and starting wars, they were told by the same exact right-wingers to get in line, love it or leave it, support the President, don't be such nutjobs as to criticize your government.

I'm sure there are Tea Partiers who wish the social agenda would go away, but there's no denying it's a huge part of the movement IN PRACTICE, both in the streets and in statehouses. And the fact that it happened now is instructive; I think it's obvious that hatred of Obama is a motivator greater than hatred of spending.

If you want to get religion in the mix, we believe that God knew of this human before it existed

Where to begin. Which god or gods specifically? You talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster here? Invisible Pink Unicorn in the Sky?

I think human life is sacred. I'm talking about the life that already exists rather then some hypothetical phantom being.

Originally Posted by Jero

Now that this is out there, can you please show me the law that Mourdock was trying to pass that had to do with this?

I'm going to assume you know how to use google and you're just choosing not to. Already taking up time to respond to your nonsense, not going to go digging up easily accessible information just so that you can attempt to spin it into something slightly more palatable, only to fail miserably once again.

Originally Posted by Jero

The Democrats try to force their beliefs on the religious all of the time.

Legislating on purely religious and anti-scientific ground is almost exclusively the domain of the GOP. That's just a fact.

Originally Posted by Jero

Who was trying to disenfranchise voters?

HA!

Originally Posted by Jero

This was one election, I am not worried.

Good. I hope the GOP changes nothing about their strategy for the next election

Originally Posted by Jero

Can you show me where anyone was saying they were going to move out of this country if Obama won?

You are more blind than most of the bigoted sheep I run into, and that is saying something.

That depends on what criteria you're using. It's not the smartest, not the happiest, not the most free, not the healthiest. At some point you have to put down the big foam #1 finger and face the facts, America can't keep coasting on the accomplishments of previous generations. We are not the "greatest" country on earth anymore, not by any of the measurements I have listed.

We have 27% of the worlds GDP and more than double the next biggest economy.
We spend twice as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined.

We stopped being the ´best´ or never were the best of many of the things you mentioned. But the above two statements mean we will be the most important and most powerful country for a long time.

Why has proposing (and enacting in states) abortion legislation been such a huge part of the 2010 class of GOP lawmakers' agenda then?

YOU have got to understand, that so long as these Tea Party darlings use the positions given to them by their constituents to try o legislate morality, rational people are going to see statements like yours as pure bullshit. If the 2010 Tea Party uprising was really non-partisan outrage at government overstepping their bounds, and losing the moral compass of fiscal responsibility, it would have happened in Bush's first term, instead of as a reaction to a healthcare reform law that didn't even cut out their insurance companies.

Know what was happening in 2003? The people on street corners complaining about the Patriot Act, Iraq "intelligence", and the fiscal stupidity of cutting taxes and starting wars, they were told by the same exact right-wingers to get in line, love it or leave it, support the President, don't be such nutjobs as to criticize your government.

I'm sure there are Tea Partiers who wish the social agenda would go away, but there's no denying it's a huge part of the movement IN PRACTICE, both in the streets and in statehouses. And the fact that it happened now is instructive; I think it's obvious that hatred of Obama is a motivator greater than hatred of spending.

Can you show that it was a huge part of the Tea Party agenda? Can you show the Tea Party itself is trying to legislate morality? People on the right were, and still are, upset about Bush's spending. They supported the tax cuts, but not the spending. The movement isn't about hating Obama, it is about disagreeing with the direction the country is taking. Obama happens to be the leader of that change and he proudly proclaimed it when he won in 2008. This is what the movement is against.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 05:29 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Zhangfei

Well from their donations to right-wing politicians, can we assume they lean right?

In part, if you could show it. Although you might find that many will donate to both to hedge their bets.